Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven

[SkyWriting]

Okay here's a brief synopsis...Frank Tipler started out as an atheist, so his first book on this topic (The Physics of Immortality) was an attempt to show that any human, living or dead, could be virtually rendered in a computer simulation. This may have seemed far fetched when the Physics of Immortality was first published but it seems significantly less far fetched now.... especially when respected scientists and researchers like Stephen Hawking are constantly warning us about the dangers of artificial intelligence. The first artificial intelligence will most likely be the first simulated human consciousness. ( ie computers are already more "intelligent" than human...they just cant process the information in any meaningful way) When people talk about artificial intelligence they are actually talking about a computer which is conscious/ self-aware in the way that humans are... most likely reverse engineered from a human. And so once this first simulated consciousness has been developed, we just do every physically possible variation of that simulation and we will have brought back every person who has ever lived (or could possibly have lived)
Tipler points out that we will be able to simulate all possible sets of memories and interactions for these simulated personalities… meaning that you, me and everyone that we know and love, can be brought back, along with all of our shared memories and experiences…..everyone who has ever lived can be reunited in this idealized version of an afterlife…indeed, as Tipler points out, this perfect virtual reality state seems almost indistinguishable from the Judeo -Christian description of heaven.
But then comes the question of how humanity (or whatever humanity evolves into) would be able to facilitate the computational power necessary to make this virtual heaven possible...or how we could make this "heaven" last forever...since the simulation would still be taking place within a finite universe. This is where the concept of an "Omega Point" comes into the picture.
As Wikipedia notes “the supposition of a closed universe evolving towards a
future collapse state is key to Tipler’s Omega Point. Within this universe, Tipler assumes a massive processing capability. As the universe becomes smaller, the processing capability becomes larger” Tipler points out that in the final fleeting moments of universal collapse we will have access to infinite energy and infinite computational power. Within this context we will be able to simulate anything, no matter how complex....and infinite computational power will facilitate infinite subjective time within the simulation....
Yikes I'm starting to realize that this isn't such a short synopsis and I actually have to get back to work....Ill have to explain the second half of this theory at some point t tonight holy:

None of what you've summarized sounds correct so far. I can tell from how people respond to what I've said if they are busy texting somebody. Computer simulation will never fool somebody who is paying attention that they are seeing a simulation.

 

[Armoured]

The reason they entertain the idea is that it is the only alternative explanation, apart from God, for the fact that this universe seems to balanced on a knife edge in terms of the value of its fundamental constants.

False dichotomy. There's plenty of other options.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Tipler points out that we will be able to simulate all possible sets of memories and interactions for these simulated personalities… meaning that you, me and everyone that we know and love, can be brought back, along with all of our shared memories and experiences…..everyone who has ever lived can be reunited in this idealized version of an afterlife…
indeed, as Tipler points out, this perfect virtual reality state seems almost indistinguishable from the Judeo -Christian description of heaven.

Actually it's a close to infinite number of heavens with a similarly huge number of yous, mes and everyone elses. And nowhere in this world do I see angels and monsters singing and dancing around god on a throne, so how does that enter the simulation? I have to assume there would be a nearly infinite number of possible angels, monsters & gods to go along with the nearly infinite possible yous and mes. And if you can do that, then surely Islamic Heaven, Norse Valhalla, Greek Elysium and Incan Pacha will also be simulated. So, without any special pleading, how can we conclude that this is Christian heaven? And which of the close to infinite God's is God?

 

[Larniavc]

as Tipler points out, this perfect virtual reality state seems almost indistinguishable from the Judeo -Christian description of heaven.

Dunno about that. There is no need for the concept of sin or salvation in a technology driven holographic existence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The weak anthropic principle is just a trivially true statement. It doesn't begin to cut it as an explanation of cosmological fine tuning.

That's my point.

 

[lesliedellow]

False dichotomy. There's plenty of other options.

Name them. I can only think of one, and only one or two physicists buy it, because it would mean rethinking the underlying presuppositions of the physical sciences.

In fact it would be music to the ears of one fundamentalist on here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Name them. I can only think of one, and only one or two physicists buy it, because it would mean rethinking the underlying presuppositions of the physical sciences.

In fact it would be music to the ears of one fundamentalist on here.

Let's assume nobody here can imagine another option.

That doesn't mean that there are no other options.
Reality isn't limited by what we can or can't imagine.

In the words of professor Krauss: "...to say that you can't conceive of something... just means that you can't conceive it".

 

[lesliedellow]

Let's assume nobody here can imagine another option.

That doesn't mean that there are no other options.
Reality isn't limited by what we can or can't imagine.

In the words of professor Krauss: "...to say that you can't conceive of something... just means that you can't conceive it".

Before you start claiming that something is a false dichotomy, you had better be able to come up with a third option.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Penrose a couple weeks ago and now Tipler in the forums. We should have the two of them fight over artificial intelligence in the Big Brawl of Physicists Whose Pet Theories Aren't Taken Seriously by Their Colleagues.

 

[Michael]

Sounds like science fiction to me, infused with some heavy biases.

Having said that, how does any of this tie in with the thread title? How is any of this "scientific proof for the existance of god and heaven"?

It seems to me that, assuming any of this could even be done, it would be the opposite. It would be a computer simulation. Not an actual thing in reality.

If I build a computer model that simulates a unicorn, you wouldn't agree that that simulation is "proof for the existance" of unicorns, right? .... right?

Considering that fact that you need to do a "computer sim" on *four different* make-believe entities to get your cosmology beliefs to work correctly, what gives you the right to whine about computer simulations? Wow!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

yeah thats part of it....but dawkins and other hardcore atheists are also uncomfortable with the quasi-mystical implications of the copenhagen interpretation...mwi purports to solve the problem by claiming that consciousness triggered wavefunction collapse is not actually a collapse ...that we are actually seeing our universe split into one of countless possible universes...

I don't know of any mainstream physicists that now favour conscious wavefunction collapse (von Neumann–Wigner interpretation) - it was controversial when first suggested over 70 years ago, and is a fringe view if still around at all.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If I build a computer model that simulates a unicorn, you wouldn't agree that that simulation is "proof for the existance" of unicorns, right? .... right?

Yes; the only things that computers model that are the same as the 'real thing', are computational processes - in which case it emulates them rather than simulating them. A computer tornado simulation won't disturb the papers on your desk, but a computer pocket calculator emulation can do all the same calculations as the original.

An emulation of consciousness might well be theoretically possible, but even with technology to rival the processing power and connectivity of the brain, it would be a major challenge to achieve. Philosopher Daniel Dennett is of the opinion that there wouldn't be a sufficient commercial justification for such a project, let alone the ethical issues it would raise. He feels AI is likely to be restricted to specific applications or types of application, and used as a tool.

 

[white gardenia]

Sounds like science fiction to me, infused with some heavy biases.

science fiction? perhaps...but that means that Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Bill Gates are all pushing science fiction...in fact they seem rather worried about it, since they keep warning the public about the potential dangers of machine intelligence...
Again I have to point out that respected skeptic/ atheist Sam Harris finds it "unimaginable" that AI's will not come into existence. He points out that the viability of artificial intelligence (and by extension, “artificial/ simulated history”, ”artificial memories” etc. etc ) all follow logically from an atheistic materialistic worldview “I cant imagine a scientist not granting that- number one, we are going to make progress in computer design [to that extent]…and two- that there is nothing magical about biological material as far as intelligence is concerned”
Again Harris is echoing what most scientists believe– that it’s not only possible…it is inevitable (at least in some form).

It seems to me that, assuming any of this could even be done, it would be the opposite. It would be a computer simulation. Not an actual thing in reality.

If I build a computer model that simulates a unicorn, you wouldn't agree that that simulation is "proof for the existance" of unicorns, right? .... right?

but you are thinking in terms of weak- narrow AI....like a video game character which has programmed to exhibit traits of human consciousness....it is only mimicking consciousness....true artificial intelligence will be self-aware and conscious in the same way that humans are

 

[white gardenia]

Actually it's a close to infinite number of heavens with a similarly huge number of yous, mes and everyone elses. And nowhere in this world do I see angels and monsters singing and dancing around god on a throne, so how does that enter the simulation? I have to assume there would be a nearly infinite number of possible angels, monsters & gods to go along with the nearly infinite possible yous and mes. And if you can do that, then surely Islamic Heaven, Norse Valhalla, Greek Elysium and Incan Pacha will also be simulated. So, without any special pleading, how can we conclude that this is Christian heaven? And which of the close to infinite God's is God?

yes, that is a good point....we would not only be simulating every person who has ever lived but every person who could could possibly have lived ....including trillions of angels, viking gods and probably even Richard Dawkins beloved Flying Spaghetti Monster...
but remember if Mr. Dawkins is right about mwi, all of these things are already out there in the multiverse (ie every physically possible timeline has to be represented under the many worlds framework...)
As far as what religion will control virtual heaven? I think that most religions have a pretty consistent view of what the afterlife should be. We all want to be reunited with our loved ones...we all want to avoid pain as much as possible...But a resurrected Incan should be allowed to have whatever kind of afterlife that he or she would like... And the same should go for a resurrected atheist...I am from the Origen Adamantius school of Christianity...all people, no matter what race creed or religion, will eventually end up in Heaven

 

[white gardenia]

how does any of this tie in with the thread title? How is any of this "scientific proof for the existance of god and heaven"?

Well there are several pieces of proof which in my opinion add up to a strong case for the Judeo-Christian worldview. But let me lay out the second half of Tipler's theory because this is where Frank Tipler made the leap from atheist w/ transhumanist leanings to more or less traditional mainline Christian. And I will attempt to explain one aspect of this theory which many see as ironclad proof that the Omega Point/ human immortality/ virtual heavens etc..etc are actually inevitable. I am not entirely convinced that this aspect of the OPT is true, but Prof. Tipler does make a compelling argument

But first one point of clarification regarding the Omega Point Theory….Some people might wrongly equate this theory with other quasi-religious, pseudoscientific belief systems. I have had atheist friends who believe that aliens will someday come and show us the meaning of life and/or grant us eternal life with advanced alien technology. Now I hope and pray that this could be true. I would be the happiest man alive if these types of scenarios were to actually play out….But in my friends case, the fate of humanity is contingent on something that is completely out of our hands…it is based on faith, and that is important, but it is very different from what Dr. Tipler is proposing….Tipler’s Omega Point is based on force…it is an engineering project whose goal is to FORCE a specific outcome….And it is based on workable real world technology, as opposed to pseudoscientific theories or wishful thinking…

Faith may also enter into it, in this sense (and this is also where is where the "scientific proof" seems to come into play)....

there is an unexpected kind of evidence that seems to indicate that the human race will be successful in reaching the Omega Point state. And the evidence seems to arise from what looks like a flaw in Tipler's theory. Again, Tipler's theory presupposes that we live in a closed universe which is evolving towards a future collapse state. And until the late 1990s most astronomers/ physicists predicted the metric expansion of space would continue for awhile but would eventually start contracting, culminating in the “big crunch”/ collapse state which Tipler describes….However, in 1998, a value measured from observations of Type Ia supernovae seemed to indicate that what was once assumed to be temporary cosmological expansion was actually accelerating.
This along with along with similar data obtained through cosmic microwave mapping, shocked the scientific world and started a guessing game as to what was causing this unforseen acceleration. In 1998 Michael Turner coined the phrase “dark energy” to describe a theoretical new form of energy which may or may not be the actual culprit.
The rise of dark energy caused many to dismiss Tipler’s Omega Point out of hand. After all, the necessity of a final big crunch singularity was key to the Omega Points workability. But as Tipler points out in the Physics of Christianity....there are various ways in which the human race (or whatever the human race evolves into) m,ay be able to cancel out the universal expansion and force the universe back into a collapse state In an interview with the website transhumanism.org, Tipler makes the following case– “if the observed acceleration were to continue forever, the Omega Point Theory would be refuted. But the expansion of life to engulf the universe is EXACTLY what is required to cancel the positive cosmological constant (a.k.a. the Dark Energy): as life expands outward, life will require energy, and before the collapse of the universe provides gravitational collapse energy, the energy source will be the conversion of baryons and leptons into energy via electroweak quantum tunneling, a process I describe in Section N (relativistic spacecraft) of the Appendix for Scientists. What I did not realize when I wrote my book a decade ago is that this electroweak process would also act to cancel any positive cosmological constant today, and that the net baryon number in the universe would REQUIRE such Dark Energy today.”

But here is the weirdest part of the theory (and it may be the factor which caused Tipler to convert from atheist to Christian) the very fact that our universe EVEN EXISTS may indicate that our ancestors will be successful in creating the Omega Point. As Tipler points out in the interview

Stephen Hawking's calculations have shown that the universe cannot continue to exist past a certain point. The universe has to end in a final singularity before black holes can evaporate to completion....if the universe does not end in this way it will violate the laws of unitarity...Unitarity (physics) - Wikipedia

So the very fact that the universe exists in the first place may prove that the universe ends in a collapse state....but why would it end in a collapse state if we live in an open universe ? It could be because our ancestors force it into that state because it is in their best interests....

After all, the universe is doomed one way or the other…either through heat death or through the “big crunch”… and whatever becomes of the human race will be destroyed with it… And this is why Tipler’s Omega Point theory is so brilliant. He uses the destructive nature of this universal meltdown an asset. He says, if the universe is going to burn down in an infinitely white hot singularity…why not put that infinite store of energy to good use?

 

[quatona]

ie computers are already more "intelligent" than human...they just cant process the information in any meaningful way

There was me thinking that "intelligence" referrred mainly to the very ability to process information in a meaningful way.

 

[quatona]

from the atheistic perspective the human brain is simply another kind of machinery...

I´m sorry, but refuting viewpoints held by atheists doesn´t help with proving the existence of God/Heaven, even less when those viewpoints aren´t defining atheism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Before you start claiming that something is a false dichotomy, you had better be able to come up with a third option.

One doesn't need to give an additional possible option, in order to point out that someone is limiting the set of possible options, without being able to know or demonstrate that that is the only possible set.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Considering that fact that you need to do a "computer sim" on *four different* make-believe entities to get your cosmology beliefs to work correctly, what gives you the right to whine about computer simulations? Wow!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes; the only things that computers model that are the same as the 'real thing', are computational processes - in which case it emulates them rather than simulating them. A computer tornado simulation won't disturb the papers on your desk, but a computer pocket calculator emulation can do all the same calculations as the original.

An emulation of consciousness might well be theoretically possible, but even with technology to rival the processing power and connectivity of the brain, it would be a major challenge to achieve. Philosopher Daniel Dennett is of the opinion that there wouldn't be a sufficient commercial justification for such a project, let alone the ethical issues it would raise. He feels AI is likely to be restricted to specific applications or types of application, and used as a tool.

Exactly.

While I get the concerns over AI, I think it misses the point.

The point of application software, is to accomplish a specific task.
Before one even thinks about building an application, there is a business need.
You kinda have to know what you're going to make and why, before you can start. So indeed, for all practical purposes, software is a tool.

AI is about having those applications improve themselves through machine learning.

Once the applications stop doing what they are meant to do, they become useless.
So there would be exactly zero reason for developing an AI engine that can become "aware" and be capable of emotional decision making and stuff.

The only reason I can imagine that something like that might be build, is in some kind of science experiment or similar, to better understand how brains work and psychological processes etc.

I just don't see it happening.